Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Hairy mellon · 05-03-2014 1:08pm

agreed should have been phased and done properly.

4Sticks · 05-03-2014 3:07pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

proposed 15% increase for 2014 is in line with this assessment.

Useful to recall the rule of 70. Divide any constant annual % rise into 70 to get the approx . doubling time. 70/15 = 4.66 years.

I know % rises may not be constant 15% I only draw attention that if constant the doubling period is very fast.

100
115 after 1 year
132.25
152 ( 50% after 3 years as per hm post)
175
201 after 5 years

.

martinn123 · 05-03-2014 3:31pm

4Sticks wrote: »

Useful to recall the rule of 70. Divide any constant annual % rise into 70 to get the doubling time. 70/15 = 4.66 years.

I know % rises may not be constant 15% I only draw attention that if constant the doubling period is very fast.

100
115 after 1 year
132.25
152 ( 50% after 3 years as per hm post)
175
201 after 5 years

.

How relevant is this to overall Professional Costs.

For example what percentage do insurance costs, account for in the annual overheads of a practitioner.
a 15% increase, sounds a lot, ( how much has VHI increased last year ),
what effect does this have on the overall profitability of a practise, what will this mean in percentage terms to the Fees Per Hour.

Finally HM said

for instances like this where new regulation comes out and industry is unsure about legal interpretations it is normal procedure to gradually over a 3 year period increase premiums up by 50%- simple hedge against increased claims etc.

by this time there should be some legal precedents set and then further increases are looked at based on information through the courts.

''Further increases'' if applicable will be based on court claims, you have assumed the 15% will continue for 5 years, to arrive at 200, on what basis have you made this assumption.

Hairy mellon · 05-03-2014 3:44pm

i think pi costs will be related more to claims

currently if your pi insurer gets notification of a possible claim even if it does not materialise premiums go up

if single-point responsibility for entire design team is certifier role, then any issue regarding m&e, materials used, quality of construction or structural design of foundation will come into certifier's lap first. it will be then up to certifiers insurance company to contest or join with others, if others still exist or have pi insurance etc.

one wonders if architects and surveyors are competent to sign-off on structural calculations and designs at all?

imho the best person qualified for this role, similar to uk and elsewhere, is an upskilled structural engineer

over 90% of claims are due to below ground works, so structural engineer would be one of the most qualified professionals to deal with areas subject to defects. Unfortunately a lot of professional debate has centered around one sector thinking they are in some way better at doing the role than another. It would have been more useful to

a) identify majority of claims/defects (below ground and say fire)
b) identify what current professional best suited to monitor this (structural and fire consultant/ technologist)
c) establish independent register that identifies key areas to be enhanced in skillsets and upskill accordingly

this would seem to be a more reasoned and logical way to implement the desired changes.

it would seem easier to train up a structural engineer in fire and part m and L regs rather than sending surveyors and architects back to school to brush-up on modulus of elasticity and factors of safety. Also there are areas of very detailed design expertise particularly in m+e where very few people would have required competencies to sign off. This is very evident in enhanced part L where there are various newer technologies combining- e.g. heat pumps, solar-thermal, photovoltaic arrays etc.

is there any one person really competent to occupy these new roles?

4Sticks · 05-03-2014 3:49pm

martinn123 wrote: »

assumed the 15% will continue for 5 years, to arrive at 200, on what basis have you made this assumption.

Please re read my post - I just made a projection on a "what if" basis.

4Sticks · 05-03-2014 3:50pm

Hairy mellon wrote: »

is there any one person really competent to occupy these new roles?

the man or woman has yet to born

martinn123 · 05-03-2014 3:59pm

4Sticks wrote: »

Please re read my post - I just made a projection on a "what if" basis.

Fine, and ''What if '' you are right, the remainder of my post, is a request to put this in some context.........not just another ''massive fee increase'' comment.

4Sticks · 05-03-2014 4:27pm

The context of PI costs as an overall cost to a Certifier , will vary between individual practitioners.
Smaller practices will be hit proportionately harder and newer practices harder still.
I'm not trying to justify any ''massive fee increase'' just putting some of my own perspective out there.
Like yourself

martinn123 · 05-03-2014 4:46pm

4Sticks wrote: »

The context of PI costs as an overall cost to a Certifier , will vary between individual practitioners.
Smaller practices will be hit proportionately harder and newer practices harder still.
I'm not trying to justify any ''massive fee increase'' just putting some of my own perspective out there.
Like yourself

Absolutely,;)

I am trying to tease out the reasoning behind some of the ''Fees'' increases.

The Minister says 1-3K
that, blog thing that gets linked here mentions up to 50K.
The Truth is out there somewhere.

So reason one is Insurance Cost Increases.
Anyone have a real figure from their Insurer, they can share, even as a percentage.

Reason two is increased, site visits for Inspection.

From Irish Times Article

The assigned certifier, who will be a chartered building surveyor, architect or engineer, initially develops a plan incorporating an inspection notification framework for the project outlining inspections, co-ordinating inputs from other professionals and ensuring that inspections and tests are carried out.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/opinion-new-building-regulations-will-add-costs-but-also-peace-of-mind-1.1705395

Anyone done this yet and agreed the schedule of visits, and cost therof, ??

Some factual cases are required, to weed out the speculation from the facts.

maybe it's too soon as yet.

4Sticks · 05-03-2014 4:59pm

martinn123 wrote: »

maybe it's too soon as yet.

It is really.

As I posted before here keep an eye the CSO site to see how one off house build commencement notices are affected for one interesting indicator ( I think anyway)

sydthebeat · 05-03-2014 5:00pm

I think the climate of how Professional Indemnity Insurance actually works needs to be teased out a little.... because it pretty much is logically contrary to how most other insurances work

First, when you become insured, the insurer is indemnifying you for all work youve ever done.
What that means in effect, taking 2014 as an example, is that the insurance a professional had in 2009 does not cover them for works carried out in 2009.... the insurance they have in 2014 covers them. This is a 'rolling' type insurance that has to be maintained always. Important to that is the fact that no gaps can appear in the insurance time line. If a professional is a day late in getting cover, then they are considered to have allowed the PI to lapse and any new insurance is taken from a 'ground zero' basis and everything they have done to date becomes exposed.
We have a scenario now that underwriters are pulling from the market leaving a smaller pool to challange markets forces.

Secondly, unlike a lot of other insurances, if a professional is named in any claim, they must notify their insurer immediately (14 days IIRC). If they do not then the insurer can claim breach of terms.
What this means is that premiums are based on previous and possible claims and previous , rather than just previous adjudicated claims. As some claims can go without any action for years, these, possible vexatious, claims hang over the professionals heads every time premiums are sought.

Thirdly, as a follow on to the above.... even when the professional has discharged their duties properly, they will still ALWAYS be named in prospective claims. The solicitor for any appellant will name every party involved in an action, and leave it up to the parties to prove innocence. Innocent until proven guilty DOES NOT exist in PI insurance.

Fourthly, some people may be aware of the 1% rule we have in ireland when it comes to lawsuits. This basically means that while a party in a claim may only be found to be 1% negligent for the claim, if all other parties with the greater negligence are not in a position to pay (see dissolved builders) the 100% of the claim is to fall on the 1% party.
Due to this rule insurers have a propensity to pay out on smaller claims without letting it go to court... even if the professional is 100% vehemently sure they have no negligence. In fact if the professional wants to go against this course of action from the insurer and bring it to court... the insurer will insist that their insurance is withdrawn. These cases can be settled out of court with actual no conversation and / or agreement with the professional.
and naturally of course the professionals premium will climb to a level where, on average, the total claim is made back by the insurer with 3-4 years.

Under this system, do people honestly expect professionals to go out on a limb for novice self builders????

Penn · 05-03-2014 5:01pm

It's too soon yet. The commencement stage and completion stage submissions will take companies longer to do for the first while until they build up a framework for it. Once they've done a few, they'll be quicker at it.

More hours required making sure everyone's aware of the correct details, producing clearer specs, making sure everyone has the right building regs etc.

More inspections will be needed but even with an agreed framework for inspections with the LA of 6 inspections for example, more interim inspections may take place in between that depending on various circumstances so the assigned certifier is happy the work is being done correctly and they can sign it off. Just because 6 inspections might be fine and agreed with the BCMS, the assigned certifier might want to visit the site more than that.

More hours required for collecting and compiling the various certs for materials etc, particularly for the first year or two as everyone gets used to the procedure and what's required at what stage etc.

More hours producing as-built information for items which may have changed during construction.

Insurance likely won't go up too much for the first year or two, and will largely be determined when claims start being brought against professionals.

I think as with most cases where two groups are in disagreement, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I don't think costs will rise by as much as €15k, but I also think in a lot of cases it'll be more than the €1-3k that Hogan claimed, particularly for the first year or two. The €50k I can only assume is based on a hypothetical case of a proposed self-build project where the client has to hire a main contractor rather than manage the project themselves. I can't see any other scenario where the cost could increase by such an amount for a single house.

4Sticks · 05-03-2014 5:28pm

Penn wrote: »

The €50k I can only assume is based on a hypothetical case of a proposed self-build project where the client has to hire a main contractor rather than manage the project themselves. I can't see any other scenario where the cost could increase by such an amount for a single house.

That's what I believe it was too - the cumulative additional costs of the design and certifying professionals together with having to hire a contractor.

mandy gall · 05-03-2014 9:14pm

4Sticks wrote: »

That's what I believe it was too - the cumulative additional costs of the design and certifying professionals together with having to hire a contractor.

Correct that's exactly what it was. According to the Si9 self build not possible i just wish minister hogan would just come out and admit that. Whats he scared off???

Poor Uncle Tom · 05-03-2014 9:32pm

mandy gall wrote: »

Whats he scared off???

Well lets see......
1. He brought in legislation he doesn't understand,
2. He hopes if he keeps his gob shut the bad people will leave him alone,
3. He knows the local elections will be over before the first lot of completion certs will be due,
4. He knows the longer he gets before the real effects of this legislation are known, the more external forces he can blame on the loss of jobs, the extra costs on the building client, the inability to build a self build legally.....
5. He has a knack to see past good advice and accept the worst possible scenario to squander a golden opportunity to overhaul the the Building Control Act in a real meaningful way, that could actually create jobs.
6. His thick skin won't actually allow him to admit he was wrong,

There are actually lots more, I just can't bear his image in my head any longer.....

mandy gall · 05-03-2014 9:41pm

I was being sarcastic but thanks for the run down anyway. Pressure must be applied this week and next to admit self build is over.

Poor Uncle Tom · 05-03-2014 9:44pm

mandy gall wrote: »

I was being sarcastic

I know, can't you tell.....:p

mandy gall wrote: »

Pressure must be applied this week and next to admit self build is over.

What had you in mind?

mandy gall · 05-03-2014 9:50pm

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I know, can't you tell.....:p

What had you in mind?

In an ideal world id use a vice grips in a certain place but this is the real world so we will come up with something else...:rolleyes:

4Sticks · 06-03-2014 7:44am

mandy gall wrote: »

In an ideal world id use a vice grips in a certain place but this is the real world so we will come up with something else...:rolleyes:

But you have to be a builder to use the vice grips....

dathi · 06-03-2014 9:17am

4Sticks wrote: »

But you have to be a builder to use the vice grips....

would have thought that would come under plumber sub cert

mandy gall · 06-03-2014 11:44am

4Sticks wrote: »

But you have to be a builder to use the vice grips....

And a 'competent' one...:D
if your old enough you might know Faulty Towers, if so, just remember what Sybil does to Mr O'Reilly!
I must keep a brolly with me at all times :cool:e

4Sticks · 06-03-2014 11:50am

Lick a paint , lick a paint.
Dear old David Kelly RIP

mandy gall · 06-03-2014 11:57am

God rest his soul - dont think he would appreciate his fellow countrymen, women and children being treated like this. Im all for regulation but it must take everything and everyone into account. This has clearly not been done. Maybe im stupid but couldnt they set up a register of competent tradespeople in every local authority and the cash generated from their annual registration go towards a few more building inspectors? Like i said maybe im being a silly billy ??

4Sticks · 06-03-2014 12:01pm

You mean something like this. Only the English do stuff like that.

mandy gall · 06-03-2014 12:23pm

I know well i for one will not give up, i want to leave this earth knowing my children have some future in this country. I wont let that 'hideous orangutan' dictate nonsense to us..."i can speak english...i learn it from a book"

Andrew_Doran · 06-03-2014 2:56pm

Straight from the horses mouth. Via bregsforum.

Enda Kenny wrote:

The register will play a vital role in the continuing clampdown on activity in the shadow economy and I expect industry to work together with Government in driving out reckless and non-compliant contractors

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2014/02/speech-by-the-taoiseach-mr-enda-kenny-t-d-at-a-business-dinner-hosted-by-sherry-fitzgerald-on-tuesday-4-february-2014/

By "continuing", he is undoubtedly referring to the law on domestic electrical works introduced last October (among others).

DvB · 06-03-2014 3:37pm

Quick question in relation to the uploading of information to the BCMS site when submitting a commencement notice.
At the engineer Ireland seminar we attended the impression we got was that the person merely uploading the documents didnt necessarily have to be the registered as assigned certifier etc. & that role could be carried out by admin staff or suchlike. I assume that is actually not the case & only people actually registered on the BCMS can carry out this task? Or am i missing something on the website?

martinn123 · 06-03-2014 3:58pm

Well here's a proposed solution to the Self-Builder signing the Declaration, simple enough..........

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/the-two-main-problems-that-self-builders-face-bcar-si-9/

Dear Local Authority

I intend to self build my house through Direct Labour route and I would appreciate it if you could clarify the following for me as far as the Building Control (Amendment) Regulation S.I 9.

1) Can I Self Build using Direct Labour including myself?

2) Can I nominate myself as the builder for the purpose of the certifications?

3) At commencement stage can you provide written undertaking that my builder's completion certificate where I sign as builder will not be rejected?

4) In the certificate for Undertaking by the Builder, Form Of Certificate Of Compliance and the Certificate Of Compliance On Completion where it is indicated “to be signed by a Principal or Director of a Building Company only”, can you please confirm I not be breaking the law if I sign it as I am not a principal or director of a company?

Thank you for your help and co-operation.

To be signed and stamped by the representative of the Local Authority .

Date:

DOCARCH · 06-03-2014 4:00pm

martinn123 wrote: »

Dear Local Authority

I intend to self build my house through Direct Labour route and I would appreciate it if you could clarify the following for me as far as the Building Control (Amendment) Regulation S.I 9.

1) Can I Self Build using Direct Labour including myself?

2) Can I nominate myself as the builder for the purpose of the certifications?

3) At commencement stage can you provide written undertaking that my builder's completion certificate where I sign as builder will not be rejected?

4) In the certificate for Undertaking by the Builder, Form Of Certificate Of Compliance and the Certificate Of Compliance On Completion where it is indicated “to be signed by a Principal or Director of a Building Company only”, can you please confirm I not be breaking the law if I sign it as I am not a principal or director of a company?

Thank you for your help and co-operation.

To be signed and stamped by the representative of the Local Authority .

Good one...but...not a chance of getting a reply to that!

martinn123 · 06-03-2014 4:02pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

Good one...but...not a chance of getting a reply to that!

Reading the Article, you get it signed and stamped at the LA Office.Apparently.

DOCARCH · 06-03-2014 8:32pm

martinn123 wrote: »

Apparently.

That's the key word. When push comes to shove, I'd be very surprised/shocked if LA official would sign/stamp anything (other than a prescribed form that is).

DOCARCH · 07-03-2014 7:23am

I see in South Dublin CC the pool of potential certifiers has been expanded...

http://www.sdcc.ie/services/planning/commencement-completion/guide-to-the-building-control-amendment-regulations-2014

...to include Registered Quantity Surveyors. :cool:

sydthebeat · 07-03-2014 7:26am

Wow that's some cock up

DOCARCH · 07-03-2014 7:30am

sydthebeat wrote: »

Wow that's some cock up

Just fired them off a quick email to point out the error of their ways!

sydthebeat · 07-03-2014 7:35am

DOCARCH wrote: »

Just fired them off a quick email to point out the error of their ways!

It's as if they are working off the first draft of SI80

Happyman42 · 07-03-2014 9:37am

Has another piece of legislation caused as big a mess? Flipping disaster!

DOCARCH · 07-03-2014 9:40am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Has another piece of legislation caused as big a mess? Flipping disaster!

I deleted 'has' and '?'...now it is a statement of fact (no question about it).

Gumbo · 07-03-2014 2:16pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

I see in South Dublin CC the pool of potential certifiers has been expanded...

http://www.sdcc.ie/services/planning/commencement-completion/guide-to-the-building-control-amendment-regulations-2014

...to include Registered Quantity Surveyors. :cool:

sydthebeat wrote: »

Wow that's some cock up

DOCARCH wrote: »

Just fired them off a quick email to point out the error of their ways!

sydthebeat wrote: »

It's as if they are working off the first draft of SI80

I hear its got something to do with article 5 of the Act, that allows registered members of the SCSI to lodge?

I may have been misguided though

DOCARCH · 07-03-2014 2:35pm

kceire wrote: »

I hear its got something to do with article 5 of the Act, that allows registered members of the SCSI to lodge?

I may have been misguided though

There are 12 different types of surveyor who are/can be registered/chartered members of the SCSI, including Building Surveyoirs, Quantity Surveyors, Mineral Surveyors, Land Surveyors, Art & Antique Surveyors.

If an Art & Antique Surveyor can act as Design/Assigned Certifier I will eat my hat!

mandy gall · 07-03-2014 2:35pm

Id say it's mahem in the DOE offices - thanks to Phil.

DOCARCH · 07-03-2014 2:44pm

kceire wrote: »

I hear its got something to do with article 5 of the Act...

Checked this out. Part 5 of the 2007 Act soley relates to Building Surveyors. They are the only type of surveyor that can act as Design/Assigned Certifiers.

Part 4 of the 2007 Act relates to Quantity Surveyors...they cannot act as Design/Assigned Certifiers.

Gumbo · 07-03-2014 2:44pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

There are 12 different types of surveyor who are/can be registered/chartered members of the SCSI, including Building Surveyoirs, Quantity Surveyors, Mineral Surveyors, Land Surveyors, Art & Antique Surveyors.

If an Art & Antique Surveyor can act as Design/Assigned Certifier I will eat my hat!

But they mention, and i quote :

•A Registered Building Surveyor
•A Registered Quantity Surveyor

DOCARCH · 07-03-2014 3:02pm

kceire wrote: »

But they mention, and i quote :

As far as I can see 'they' got it wrong!

shane6977 · 07-03-2014 3:48pm

CIAT calls on Minister Hogan to resolve registration omission from the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014

http://www.ciat.org.uk/en/international/republic-of-ireland.cfm

sydthebeat · 07-03-2014 3:53pm

kceire wrote: »

But they mention, and i quote :

thats exactly the error we are highlighting

Quantity surveyors were included when discussions began re the amendment... but they were quickly removed so that only part 5 surveyors ie 'Building' were included.

No6 · 07-03-2014 4:37pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

Checked this out. Part 5 of the 2007 Act soley relates to Building Surveyors. They are the only type of surveyor that can act as Design/Assigned Certifiers.

Part 4 of the 2007 Act relates to Quantity Surveyors...they cannot act as Design/Assigned Certifiers.

What about Building Control Surveyors, I have noticed that the act related to Building Surveyors but there is another beast called the Building Control Surveyor who essentially deals with wait for it Building Control (yes that's the same as the title of the Act.. Building Control Act!!)

shane6977 · 07-03-2014 5:14pm

No6 wrote: »

What about Building Control Surveyors, I have noticed that the act related to Building Surveyors but there is another beast called the Building Control Surveyor who essentially deals with wait for it Building Control (yes that's the same as the title of the Act.. Building Control Act!!)

have always wondered what qualifications are required to be a Building Control Officer? and how does that sit against those qualifications deemed fit to certify?

sydthebeat · 07-03-2014 5:59pm

shane6977 wrote: »

have always wondered what qualifications are required to be a Building Control Officer? and how does that sit against those qualifications deemed fit to certify?

a public service contract and some CPD courses.......

Gumbo · 07-03-2014 6:03pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

a public service contract and some CPD courses.......

I would take insult to that!

Gumbo · 07-03-2014 6:05pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

thats exactly the error we are highlighting

Quantity surveyors were included when discussions began re the amendment... but they were quickly removed so that only part 5 surveyors ie 'Building' were included.

My apologies. I obviously read the posts too quick. I get where he are coming from now.

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Comments

"I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year" - Charles Dickens